User talk:Lwax314/sandbox

Peer Review of Rough Draft of Article:

I would add a citation to this sentence because it has an opinion in it about what is ethical, and I don't think Wikipedia wants to make such a judgement: While it is ethical to use social networking websites to spread a message to people who are genuinely interested, many people game the system with auto-friend adding programs and spam messages and bulletins.

You do not need the first comma in this sentence:Individuals who agree to have their social media profile public, should be aware that advertisers have the ability to take information that interests them to be able to send them information and advertisements to boost their sales. Also, this sentence is a bit unclear. Advertisers can take information that interests advertisers or that interests the consumers? And send who information?

Again, I would add a citation or give credit for this opinion to a particular group or entity: This is an ethical way for managers to send messages about their advertisements and products to their consumers.

The below paragraph needs some grammatical corrections; you need a comma after Facebook. The next sentence, that beings with, "They gather...," also seems a little confusing. I would reword it. The last sentence that begins, "For many users...," also needs a comma before the last "and" because it is a complete sentence afterwards. I also think you may want to revisit the style because it feels a bit like an introduction to an essay. It just feels more formal and like a narrative. I remember in the training on Wikipedia it said to avoid writing the introduction like an introduction to a paper.

The relationship between social media, the marketing business, and the consumer is a complicated one to say the least. Since social media marketing first came to be, strategists and markets have been getting smarter and more careful with the way they go about collecting information and distributing advertisements. Because there is no longer a need to target specific audiences, some companies, such as Facebook have been trying to capitalize on this situation. They gather information from their users that they publically post, and then analyze and advertise accordingly. For many users they see this as a breach of privacy, but at the same time the major companies are arguing that by putting this personal information on their website, it is public information and the users are allowing the developers to use this information however they see fit.

The last paragraph (which, again, I have copied below) needs some citations. It includes opinion and bias that should be associated with an individual, group or some other entity other than Wikipedia. Overall, these are important contributions with helpful information! Great job!

Amyer23 (talk) 21:53, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Liam! Test.

Peer Review:

In the sentence that reads, “Since social media marketing first came to be, strategists and markets have been getting smarter and more careful with the way they go about collecting information and distributing advertisements” the comma after "came to be" is unnecessary and should be omitted.

You should add to citations to both of these sentences so the reader knows where you got the information from. "For many users they see this as a breach of privacy, but at the same time the major companies are arguing that by putting this personal information on their website, it is public information and the users are allowing the developers to use this information however they see fit." "On one hand, there are users who think social media should not be collecting information on them, and on the other hand there are users who appreciate the efforts and only want to see advertisements that they would be interested in."

"This is an argument that won’t be settled any time in the near future." This sentence reads as slightly opinionated and may not be appropriate for Wikipedia.

Overall, these additions seem to add important information to the article's usefulness. Great job! Rachelkramer (talk) 23:49, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Instructor Comments
Hi Liam -- you have a good start here. I agree with the reviewers above: there are three main issues I see with your rough draft, 1) the tone is more of a "paper" writing style than an encyclopedic style, including statements that are too broad and statements that have (what I assume to be) your own opinion in them, 2) you need citations throughout your work (though not quotations!) -- if some of the opinion statements are really coming from your sources, you can rephrase them to include that information, 3) it is very unclear to me where exactly you see this fitting in to the already given article, which already has two paragraphs that deal with media marketing ethics on social media. Your content seems to repeat a lot of the same points, rather than adding much detail, explaining concepts further, including examples, etc -- all ways you can expand what's already there rather than merely repeat it. Try to address these issues as much as you can before our meeting, and we can talk about them then. --Jmstew2 (talk) 14:56, 4 April 2017 (UTC)